Pie In The Sky Tykes a Pike in the Eye, as my friends down under would say.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--An article from IEEE explains just why "Alternative Energy" cannot violate the Laws of Thermodynamics or Economics any more than the bicycle wheel with the magnets on it. I would have posted this in the Snake Oil thread but I have been informed that scams that take billions and billions are "political", and should not be mentioned in the same thread with $29.95 veebalizers, gonkulators and tertiary encabulators.
See the below link:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0

"I told you so, you damned fools."
Hugo Gernsback 1884 -1967

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[TerminalJack505]

SgtRock, It's a bit off topic but I don't think your quote "I told you so, you damned fools." is from Hugo Gernsback.  At least I can't find any reference to him saying it. 

H. G. Wells is known for that quote, however.

[SgtRock]

Dear TerminalJack505:

--You appear to be mostly correct, Sir. Further research indicate that Jules Verne, Herbert George Wells, and Hugo Gernsback all said at one time or another that they wanted "I told you so, you damned fools" to be their epitaph.

--Back on topic, see below link for a partial translation of the "Die Welt" article, telling about how 600,000 to 800,000 thousand Germans have had their power cut off, for non payment do to FITs, Feed In Tariffs, doubling electric bills for poor apartment dwellers, in order to subsidize PV installations for the rich. Link below:

http://thegwpf.org/international-news/6063-green-energy-leaves-800000-germans-in-the-dark.html

--Do not get me wrong, I love PV, it is just Government trying to legislate Physics that bothers me.

"Don't drag in television. It is worked to death and there are so many better appliances you can use in your stories."
Hugo Gernsback 1884 - 1967

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[PeteInTexas]

Greetings EEVBees:

--An article from IEEE explains just why "Alternative Energy" cannot violate the Laws of Thermodynamics or Economics

 I really don't know why you think people have the stamina, if they at all have the inclination, to read your frequent links.  You can at least give an accurate brief and state your position on it if you really want to share something with the forum.  As it is, the link and then your jab at whatever is tiresome.

[SgtRock]

Dear PeteInTexas:

--I believe, Sir, that if you will read the thread more carefully, you will see that I stated my position, and fairly briefly. But I will state it again, at the risk of being more "tiresome". I think that Government using Tax Payer dollars to try to legislate physics is wasting hard earned money and is causing the loss of jobs. You will note I cited an article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers about how Wind and PV are under-performing the stated expectations by quite a large margin. The article from Die Welt also supports this contention. It seems to me that what you find tiresome, are facts which to not tend to support government intervention in Transportation and the Grid.

--With gas prices going down, I guess reaching the break even point on Plug-In hybrids will take somewhat longer now. As you know, Plug-In Hybrids often receive subsidies from hard working taxpayers. As you also know, Plug-In Hybrids use less fossil fuels and create less air pollution than conventionally powered vehicles, as long as you do not count what happens at the Generating Station. 

“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."
H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[jerry507]

The articles analysis of wind power is pretty terrible. It has a relatively small installed base and a low capacity factor, therefore it's no good. This isn't exactly a very true picture. Obviously power companies disagree. Many midwestern power companies are building huge amounts of wind turbines to supplant their fossil fuel plants. The inconsistent load factors are balanced out by cheap to build and run natural gas plants which can cycle up and down easily. Coal plants are still expensive to build and represent a considerable risk to the company. Turbines are small, individual investments which can be bought over time as needs come and go. You can actually plan a year out, not 20 years out as with a coal plant.

The subsidies picture is a load too. If you look at the real spending, wind power gets about 5 billion dollars a year in subsidies with a huge amount of that in production subsidies which will go away. The market is still growing though at 20%+ a year. While everyone is busy wetting themselves about how venture capitalists aren't funding new wind projects, the standard players (power companies) are realizing the benefits. You don't get into the power business for quick profits and paybacks. You go there if you've got a lot of money and you want to try and park it in a nice safe place for 10 years.

Solar and the rest have a ways to go technologically, but wind is already there.

[SeanB]

If you think running up a 100ton rotor in under 5 minutes is efficient then yes having the gas plant as reserve is good. But you still need to have it powered up at all time, still need oil pumps for bearings, and need to have it spinning at a lower than synchronous speed in case the wind drops. All this uses both gas and power from the grid, instead of putting out power.

[NiHaoMike]

What about small (10kW or so) natural gas piston engines in every house that also work as the water/space heater and emergency power generator? Use absorption cycle as well and you can get some cooling out of it as well.

[SeanB]

You mean an extra car per household?

[NiHaoMike]

You mean an extra car per household?

No, a small engine that is optimized to run efficiently at one power level and have provision for capturing more of the heat coming off it.

[Simon]

Not had time to read all of the thread but solar panels are expensive because gov.s will pay over the odds for them and put them on rich peoples roofs. Try buying a panel on eBay, then check out the sellers own website if they have one. I bet you will find a marked increase on the website for the same panel, I don't wonder why, I know why !

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Let me say at the outset that, American politicians are just as stupid and maybe even stupider that British ones. See the below link about how MPs have not the slightest idea how to actually cut carbon emissions by 80%:

http://www.thedailybell.com/4025/The-Carbon-Charade-Continues

"As reader after reader observed, not a single MP addressed the question. Not one had done any serious homework or showed the slightest practical grasp of how electricity is made and how our transport system is powered. They merely regurgitated irrelevant, jargon-ridden propaganda passed on to them by others. As one reader put it: "What is infinitely depressing is that all these idiots believe the nonsense they are fed."

--Given the stupidity of the Government, the idea of giving them the power to shut down Newspapers, Broadcast Networks and Websites, does not seem like a terribly good idea.

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H.L. Mencken 1880 - 1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[IanB]

Unfortunately the reason politicians behave in stupid ways (they are not stupid, they are just driven by dogma and have a tendency to seek wealth, power and influence to the detriment of society)--the reason we get politicians like that is that nobody smart enough to be a scientist would be dumb enough or have enough character flaws to seek a career in politics.

[jerry507]

Regurgitating crap goes both ways. "Wind is unreliable." Ok, HOW unreliable? The average capacity factor in Iowa is something like 33%, compared to about 65-75% to a coal power plant.

But a 2MW wind turbine might cost 3.5 million total, whereas a 300MW coal plant might cost around 1 billion. 1.75 million per MW vs 3.33 million per MW. Add to that you can build 10MW now, 100MW later and it's a very nice proposition.

Also, anyone that tells you power companies want to build more coal plants is kidding themselves. Look at this link to show you how excited power companies are about building new coal plants:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/table1.4.cfm

Wind and natural gas are an excellent combination, as several large utilities have already figured out. A bunch of anti-renewable energy pundits seem to not have a clue how the actual business of power generation works.

[SgtRock]

Dear Jerry507:

--With regard to the average capacity factor for Wind in Iowa being 33%, many argue that this is a Government Public Relations best case factor and the real factor is more like 20%, which agrees with historical data from other states and countries. If Wind in Iowa is such a profitable enterprise, then why is it subsidized by the Federal Government. Would it not be cheaper to just build gas fired plants and forget the wind altogether, given that turning gas turbines on and off every time the wind hiccups is not really good from a maintenance, or an efficiency standpoint  I do not really think people are anti renewable just for the sake of being anti renewable. It is more likely that they have noticed the difference between promises and performance. Would you please try addressing IEEE article I linked to, where the difference between was was sold and what is being received is documented. Would it be your position that the author is lying, and that UK Solar and Wind are actually performing as promised?

--Of course Power Companies would not wish to build coal fired plants, while looking down the barrel of an EPA shotgun, and a natural gas glut in the offing. I did not advocate the straw man of coal.

--Now Power Companies are almost always quasi-governmental monopolies with a guaranteed income stream and a captive customer base. Given their need to maintain good relations with their Government masters, it is possible that some decisions are made on more that just a dollars and cents, businesslike basis. I would say this varies from state to state, in the US. I.E. California Power Companies probably find themselves in a different political environment that say, West Virginia or Kentucky.

"Evabody gotta be some place."
Jackie Mason 1936 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[jerry507]

Gas power plants have always been a peak load plant. That's what they're designed to do. Many utilities have yet to embrace wind power as a viable part of their power generation schemes. Government subsidies are designed to further that. Note also that since wind power has become quite prominent now and the industry has matured, they're dropping the production tax credit.

Capacity factor is going to vary depending on the area. It's obviously more complicated given you add in the wind variable to the other capacity factor variables. For Iowa it's estimated at 33% and Iowa is estimated to be the 7th best state in the nation for wind energy.

Coal power plants have been an unpopular choice for 20 years. You can blame it on the EPA now, but again that isn't what has caused the concern. Natural gas has been rising for a long time because of the economics of consumption, the risk of construction and recently environmental concerns.

Power companies have been regulated monopolies for a very long time. This just displays a lack of broad knowledge about how the energy industry works, but I always speak in relation to the US so that is probably why we differ on a lot of issues. We do things a bit differently here. Power companies here make money by being very efficient. If you're only allowed to make X amount of money, you don't want to build a large power plant unless you absolutely have to, as it can eat into your profits if you don't use it 100% of the time. Coal power plants are very big, very expensive and they're base load plants so they're most cost effective if used 100% of the time. Often they are not, as base loads in the US are heavily eclipsed by peak loads.

Why do I bring this up and why is it important? Because it's all intertwined. Coal is really popular with a lot of people who aren't power companies. You can blame it on the EPA, but when it gets to the point where you're hardly building any more coal plants and you're getting pissy because new EPA regulations will put the nail in the coffins of the old ones you only keep around because they're sunk costs slowly paying off, it's hard to really say the EPA is killing your unburning desire for more coal powerplants.

[SgtRock]

Dear Jerry507:

--At the risk of making you even more angry, let me point out that the President has said:

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches."

--And:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, [energy prices] would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was... [t]hey will pass that money on to consumers."

--Leaving aside for the moment the relative incoherence of the second part of the last statement, is it really your contention that this Jawboning by the President, has no effect on the viability of coal fired plants, considering that he has promised to bankrupt them if and when he can? And, why if nobody wants to build them is the President willing to skyrocket utility rates, with his "Cap and Tax" uh, er, I mean "Cap and Trade" plan, to prevent them from being built?

--I read your comment about not liking the analysis of the IEEE article I cited, but I could find no refutation of the facts as stated, that UK Solar and PV are performing very much below the promises made when they were sold to hard working British tax payers. It this correct or not. That was the point of the tread. You brought up coal, not I.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. "
Margaret Thatcher 1925 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Obi_Kwiet]

I think the issue is not whether wind and solar power can be viable sources of power, but whether they can give us a carbon free energy sector. Wind and solar will certainly have their place, but I think the issue is that politicians are heavily subsidizing it with the idea that they are draw-back free resource that can be scaled up to power the entire grid and end our carbon emissions. But in reality we are putting lots of tax payer money into the pockets of corporations that have no intention of realizing this goal.

PV and wind's power factors are HIGHLY seasonal and unpredictable, so there just isn't any way of getting them to fix the issue of carbon emissions. We can reduce them by some percentage, but as long as the economy keeps expanding, that can't be considered a solution.  There is a lot of money out there to push the a idea that it is, and a lot of highly uninformed voters who have no problem taking that at face value, but the bottom line is that there is no practical way to achieve this yet.

[jerry507]

The IEEE article doesn't really have many actual facts.

He gives some capacity factors for various types of power plants. He slightly overstates a few of them. You can find some historical data here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F205.254.135.7%2Felectricity%2Fannual%2F&ei=dgjxT6esJ8TgqgGoxrWOAg&usg=AFQjCNFOgCgTfiIq99VSFmwnA01C63FeKw

The coal numbers in that document are based on data ending in 2007. I've seen other references that seem to indicate since coal plants have been less used in the last couple years, their capacity factors are down in the 65% range. Not that it's a significant difference.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal-fired_power_plant_capacity_and_generation

As for the rest of the facts, they're not in debate. He lists reasonable numbers for growth of wind power, nameplate capacity, all that. He gives good numbers for cost of electricity from various sources. NUMBERS aren't the problem I have with the article.

The problem is what he implies. He says electricity costs from renewable are too high and cost projections are out of line. But does he talk about cost projections of the more mature wind power as proof they're unreasonable? No, he chooses solar which is, as I have said, much less mature. He implies that the growth projections of renewables won't meet demand, but instead of talking about wind which still is growing rapidly, he talks about solar. Again, a less mature industry.

He says renewables aren't a good solution because the grid can't handle them, when there is widespread consensus that our grid is terrible anyway and needs investment. Iowa, Texas, Minnesota and others are adding renewables and adding the grid necessary to handle them as part of broader infrastructure improvements. These are the same utilities that are also heavily sponsoring energy reduction initiatives to reduce the need for new energy. Hell, here in MN you can get state subsidized LED bulbs for 10-15$. That's how bad they want to avoid building new plants.

He includes many extraneous facts to cloud the issue. He talks about China adding a bunch of coal plant vs the relatively tiny additions of wind here. I don't really know what conclusion he is trying to draw there. China's energy needs are expanding at a massively different rate then here, and they're destroying their environment in the process. If anything it should be a graphic and extreme case of WHY we don't want more coal power plants.

And then at the end he gives a couple paragraphs of how massive and expensive the infrastructure to deliver fossil fuels is and how it can't be displaced in two decades. He's entirely right. But this seems to imply that since renewables can't do it, it's not worth doing. Which is... well, frankly it's just stupid (if that is his intention). Renewables won't happen overnight. It took decades to set up the fossil fuel system, and as it winds down it will be slowly replaced. In the mean time we must attack energy consumption on multiple fronts for a long time. How long will it take before incandescent bulbs disappear? The oldest currently operating coal plants will start to wind down in the next 5-10 years, they will be replaced largely with natural gas and renewables. Eventually coal will largely disappear as the newest plants start to hit 30 years and they're shut down. Power companies understand this, and they're used to operating on the span of decades. They're ALREADY DOING THIS and all they want is some reasonable certainty that we'll have some commitment to this over the years.

And last, it should be noted that traditional fossil fuels certainly receive subsidies as well. Nuclear was built on the same government-backed model that renewables are today. Are we just going to ignore that as we say nuclear is awesome, but renewables are bad because they're government backed? The following is a decent link about the cost of fossil fuel subsidies in the US. Renewables aren't the only government backed energy sources.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

[IanB]

I think if you look to the future, there isn't much gas and there is a lot more coal. Gas is going to run out, especially if people keep burning it in power plants. Burning gas is unfortunate, as it is much more valuable as a petrochemical feed stock than as a fuel.

In the longer term, coal remains in view as a major energy source. We will see a gradual increase in IGCC plants where coal is gasified in the process of extracting the energy from it and the carbon is captured rather than being emitted.

There's no simple way to "fix" the grid to support wind power. The successful operation of the grid requires matching power generation to demand. But the wind doesn't blow on demand, so the scope for wind power is inherently limited until effective electricity storage schemes exist. At present the only effective storage scheme for electricity is hydroelectric.

[jerry507]

Erm, what is "simple"? The grid is fixed by installing more lines, that is "simple". Is simple something that is cheap? That gets done quickly? Or isn't complicated?

Coal is 150 years of power, more or less depending on a lot of factors. Natural gas is about 100 years, depending again.

The fact that the wind doesn't blow on demand is certainly true, and the sun doesn't shine all the time. You can't always put water through a hydroelectric dam. Maybe the biomass crop isn't quite what it was last year.

Renewable energy isn't advertised as an EASY solution. But the downsides to fossil fuels do offset their on-demand nature. But renewable energy does not need to be equivalent to fossil fuel in all the good ways to be as good or better than fossil fuel ON BALANCE. Times aren't so simple anymore that we can ignore the future and use easy technologies. We are advanced enough to look at the whole picture, even though we might not yet have all the answers.

[SgtRock]

Dear Jerry507:

--You stated:

"And last, it should be noted that traditional fossil fuels certainly receive subsidies as well."

--The "subsidies" you refer to are not actually subsidies, but "tax exemptions" which reduce the amount of profits taken by government from the income stream of the companies concerned, in order to promote more taxable activity, not to promote policy objectives, which is the case with Wind and PV. With Fossil Fuels the taxes came first then the exemptions. With Wind and PV it is just the reverse, subsidies are granted up front, before any profits materialize. Policy objectives and not profits are driving.

--By your absence of comment on two points, I assume you agree: 1) That the Presidents idea to "Skyrocket" energy costs in order to shut down Coal Fired Plants and Gas Fired Plants as well for that matter, and use the revenue to subsidize "Wind, Solar and Biofuels" is a good idea. 2) And that, indeed, Wind and PV in the UK have not been even close performing up to the levels promised when they were foisted, no matter what figures are now being touted for new installations.

--With a Hydraulic Fracturing based Gas Glut and likely even an Oil Glut in the offing, and as the Peak Oil & Gas theory is forced to take the back seat, at least for a while (perhaps a century or so), other semi-fungible energy sources like, Wind, PV, Nuclear and yes even Coal, are going to be sucking hind teat for the nonce. This would seem to make the tarting up of the now rather peaked looking AGW Bette Noir more important than ever, if Statist Energy Policy Objectives are to succeed.

--I remain convinced that economic survival will depend on Governments consuming a lesser fraction of the GNP, and not a larger one, how ever you sort it. Even Russia which is now under the hoof of Putin and his Oligarchs, is doing markedly better than it was under the Soviet Socialists. True, Energy Income is part of this, but so is the advent of Private Property and some of the means of production being in hands other that the Goverment's.

--Lastly, please see below for a link to a Stanford University News article about Graphene and Nickel Iron Batteries, which may, repeat may, eventually allow for the practical utilization of Wind Power.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/ultrafast-edison-battery-062612.html

"He didn't know where he was going. But he knew where he was wasn't it."
Lord Buckley 1906 1960
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[IanB]

Erm, what is "simple"? The grid is fixed by installing more lines, that is "simple". Is simple something that is cheap? That gets done quickly? Or isn't complicated?

Simple is doing something that solves the problem of balancing supply and demand. Installing more lines doesn't do that.

[PeteInTexas]

Renewable energy isn't advertised as an EASY solution. But the downsides to fossil fuels do offset their on-demand nature. But renewable energy does not need to be equivalent to fossil fuel in all the good ways to be as good or better than fossil fuel ON BALANCE. Times aren't so simple anymore that we can ignore the future and use easy technologies. We are advanced enough to look at the whole picture, even though we might not yet have all the answers.

These are points critics of renewable/alternate energy critics love to overlook:

1) They insist that renewable/alternate energy MUST be a drop-in replacement of fossil fuel otherwise its a failure.  This ignores a very important build out period.  The fossil fuel industry had a similar build out period with the great advantage of non-existent environmental and health regulations (I believe slave labor was involved as well, IIRC).  That's why it was cheap and continues to be cheaper.  Renewable/alternate sources do not have these luxuries.

2) They consistently miss the point of renewable/alternate energy by not accounting for the fossil fuel that otherwise would be consumed or will be phase out.  Because it is difficult to quantify the harm of fossil fuels on the environment and on health, it is likewise conveniently ignored putting renewable/alternate energy at a different standard.

3) They continue to hold that economic feasibility in the short term is the only standard that needs to be met.  Again, this fails to recognize the value (in terms of the environment and health) of fossil fuels not consumed that renewable/alternate fuels seek to eliminate.

The criticisms of renewable/alternate energy only holds if we turn a blind eye to the TOTAL cost of fossil fuels.

[PeteInTexas]

--I remain convinced that economic survival will depend on Governments consuming a lesser fraction of the GNP, and not a larger one, how ever you sort it. Even Russia which is now under the hoof of Putin and his Oligarchs, is doing markedly better than it was under the Soviet Socialists. True, Energy Income is part of this, but so is the advent of Private Property and some of the means of production being in hands other that the Goverment's.

This is more propaganda talking point than support for a reasonable argument of a civil debate in political economy.  While government spending is unsustainable into the long term, it is a perfectly sound way of injecting capital into the economy when capitalist are being lazy about employing capital that they do have on hand.  It is especially sound when the money is spent on "big ticket" items that have long useful lives but are otherwise unprofitable for capitalists; like renewal/alternate energy infrastructures.


PS: calling capitalists lazy in this context is perfectly reasonable.  Holding on to cash instead of putting in to work is no different than a perfectly able body and mind sitting on their ass all day.